The Democrats are Too PC to Destroy Terrorist Threat

If Mr. Rogers was around today to listen to the Democratic candidates, he might say something like”Hello Boys and Girls, today’s words are Islamic Fascists, Can you Say that ? I knew you could.” Because if the If the Democratic Debate on Saturday proved anything, it proved that the candidates don’t know that word and don’t understand the true threat of Global Islamic Terrorism, either that or they are are indeed much to politically correct to fight the war on terror. When asked the specific question not one of the candidates on the Democratic side was able to Identify the enemy by name Islamic Fascism.

Dems Speak No Evil Of Islamic Jihad By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY War On Terror: If the New Hampshire debates settled anything, it’s which party has the stomach to take on radical Islam. The Democrats couldn’t even identify the enemy. Not once. Really. We scanned the transcripts of Saturday’s debates hosted by ABC News and tallied up the references to Islamic terrorism. The rhetorical divide between Democrats and Republicans on that score alone — ignoring the yawning gaps in policy — is stunning. None of the four Democrat presidential candidates — despite running for an office that demands they lead the ongoing global war against Islamic extremists — could bring himself or herself to define the enemy we face as Islamic. Their combined references to “Islam” or “Islamic” totaled zero — even though moderator Charles Gibson prompted them with a question about “Islamic radicals” threatening the U.S. with nuclear terrorism. But Democrats refused to go there. Out of respect for their constituency, there was a complete blackout regarding Islamic jihad. Instead, Hillary Clinton defined the enemy generically as “stateless terrorists,” while Barack Hussein Obama complained about the “politics of fear” that he thinks accurately defining the enemy has created. John Edwards, meanwhile, continued to wage his own personal jihad against a phantom enemy of “irresponsible” corporations — from pharmaceutical and insurance companies to oil giants and multinational corporations. Republicans, on the other hand, called the enemy by its proper name. The candidates referred to terrorists and terrorism as “Islamic,” while also citing radical “Islam” as the problem, no less than 22 times. For example:

Rudy Giuliani argued the U.S. must stay “on offense against Islamic terrorism.”

Mike Huckabee said the source of the threat we face is from the “radical Islamic faith.” “This is an Islamic problem,” he said. “This is a jihadist problem. This is an Islamofascism problem.”Huckabee elaborated: “They are prompted by the fact that they must establish a worldwide caliphate that has nothing to do with us other than we live and breathe, and their intention is to destroy us.”

John McCain warned that “the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists.”

Fred Thompson asserted, “We are in a global war with radical Islam. They declared war on us a long, long time ago. We took note, really, for the first time on Sept. 11, 2001.”

They get it. Democrats don’t. They talked a lot about “fighting” — fighting insurance companies and big business and Wall Street and polluters. But will they fight the real enemy — Islamic terrorists? To hear the Democrats in their debate, you’d think Islamic radicals had stopped plotting new attacks against us and scheming new ways of killing us. You would think they hadn’t just assassinated a former world leader. You would think they hadn’t just issued a fatwah to assassinate our own president. To hear them, you would think it was the 1990s again, when Democrats controlled the White House and the CIA and the Pentagon, and blew off Osama bin Laden after he and radical Islam declared war on the U.S. These contrasting performances in New Hampshire should crystallize in voters’ minds more than any other recent example how one party understands the titanic challenge we face from radical Islam, while the other decidedly does not.

Become a Lid Insider

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.